In 2003 Dr David Kelly was found dead in the woods. Caught in a political vortex, Dr Kelly had been forced to appear before a televised government committee investigating whether he had accused British government figures of planting in a dossier the questionable claim that WMDs could be unleashed from Iraq in 45 minutes. The Hutton Inquiry concluded that Dr Kelly took his own life. But did he? This blog takes a closer look....
Contact: RowenaThursby@onetel.com

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

COMING UP:A major new article on Norman Baker's concerns and findings to date will be in the 'Mail on Sunday' to coincide with the anniversary of Dr Kelly's death.

Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker has given up his seat on the front bench in a personal crusade to uncover the truth about Dr David Kelly's death. Two months into his investigation, he is beginning to piece together disturbing facts. On Sunday he gave his debut TV interview on the subject to GMTV's 'The Sunday Programme'. Watch the video -- links below.

The Kelly Investigation Group (KIG) is back. We and Norman Baker will work in parallel to get to the bottom of discrepancies between witness statements. The Hutton Inqury didn't do it, the Coroner didn't do it -- someone must. Ten doctors - the ones who elected to speak out - have stated categorically that this death does not make medical sense. Here are just a few of the troubling aspects to this case:

The body was photographed in two different positions; in Chapter 5 of his Report Lord Hutton stated he'd seen a photograph of the body against the tree, yet PC Sawyer, who took the photos, states the body was flat on its back; a complete set of photos would reveal then, that the body had been moved. Who moved it and why?

The transected (ulnar) artery would have retracted and sealed itself off; Dr Kelly could not have lost more than a pint of blood.

The knife - one he habitually carried on his walks to cut away undergrowth - was blunt. It had a concave blade with a hook on the end. Why would someone intent on suicide select a blunt knife with such an awkward shape?

Despite the 29 tablets missing from the blister packs in his pocket, only a fifth of a co-proxamol tablet was found in his stomach; whatever he ingested, a large proportion of it was regurgitated onto the ground. The toxicologist to the Hutton Inquiry said the amount of co-proxamol in his bloodstream was less than a third of what is normally a fatal amount.

So if he didn't die of haemorrhage and he didn't die of co-proxamol poisoning, what did he die of?The Hutton Inquiry had no 'teeth' - witnesses were not subpoenaed and did not give evidence on oath. Even the pathologist who examined Dr Kelly told the Channel 4 News team he would have preferred a formal inquest. In a case as important as this, why WAS there no inquest, why WAS there no verdict? Did Dr Kelly kill himself? Three years after the event legal and medical experts - three of them vascular surgeons - are not convinced that he did.

Tom Mangold crops up yet again in this programme as Dr Kelly's 'friend', yet in his own words to the Hutton Inquiry he described it as 'not a frequent' relationship. It transpired they exchanged few e-mails, seldom met, and when they did, it was on a professional basis. When offered a 'dry shoulder' by Mangold during a time of crisis Kelly told him in an e-mail it was a 'not a good time to be in communication' -- not a particularly friendly response. Mangold persists (as he did in Radio 4's 'Today Programme') in deliberately misleading the viewer by implying the Kelly Investigation Group's thesis is that Dr Kelly was physically lifted out of his house under the nose of his wife. The KIG has made no such assertion. It is on record that just before he disappeared, Kelly walked out of the house on his own and met a neighbour. Why does this supposed 'investigative journalist' ignore the facts and try to turn the assassination scenario into a joke?

He talks of seven agencies rgiorously examining the facts; but they didn't -- they ignored those they deemed inconvenient. Two 'dodgy dossiers' have shown the government worked hard to distort the facts over intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, so why should its agencies be trusted?

3 comments:

My assessment of Tom Mangold interviewed after Norman Baker's GMTV 'The Sunday Programme' item is that he continuously over emphasises, for example when saying 'I knew David very well', 'we had met many many times', 'not a shadow' 'not a scintilla of doubt his death was suicide.

Mr Mangold does not appear natural, he appears to be trying to give an impression of his authority and gravity. He is attempting to sprinkle a little fake fondness for his 'old friend'. He smacks of a man over acting - and amateur dramatics at that.

He states, with apparent conviction, "something awful happened round about 11 o'clock" which is pure speculation and he suggests Dr Kelly took a call that spelt out the reason he took his life.

Tom Mangold continues - "At least two people would have entered his house while his wife was there" - this is a very strange assertion, and yet he firmly says "YES" to the interviewer.

This "YES" would make a viewer - who knew no better - assume that since the interviewer did not ask of him 'what on earth are you talking about' a casual viewer would assume that what he said was logical in some way.

He continues with the concept the killers would have carried Dr Kelly - he does not say if he would be dead at this time - out into the field 3 miles away. Then to "cut his wrist" and forced him to take the tablets. So I guess Mangold is saying he was alive at this time so why on earth does he suggest they carry him to the hill?

Nobody else to my knowledge has suggested this how an assassination of Dr Kelly may have occured. Yet Tom Mangold puts forward this implausible false, contentions and stupidly flawed scenario on the one hand and dismissing it with the other. It is as though he thinks if he tells it like you or Mr Baker may suggest have been a possible scenario, then people would sit up and say - "hey - I can see that assassination could very well have happened" and "nothing factual points to suicide".

It appears to me as though Tom Mangold entire statement is a deliberate fabrication (or he has a very poor understanding of the sequence of events and known facts). My impression is especially compounded by the very last thing Mangold says, "Are we to believe [the 7 services] conspired to cover-up the truth? It's to silly to ... CONCOCT" he half says and then corrects his self to say "contemplate".

But concoct I think he did and Mr Freud could explain better than I why that very word would pop out of his subconscious just when it was perhaps the last thing he wanted to say. He covers his mouth as though to subliminally attempt to cover an error, mistake and lie. The rest of the time he keeps his hands together, perhaps to keep them from erring and clasps them together to appear assertive.

I do not think he was not there to persuade you, I or any other well informed viewer. Certainly not Mr Baker. I think he was there to cast general dispersions and invert our real concerns into those of his ridiculous concoction. Regrettably an effective strategy to undermine the case with the uninformed majority.

Of cause we cannot be certain why Dr Kelly may have been killed. It would not so likely be in simple punishment for what he had said but to prevent him from saying any more clarifying the subject of Iraq's WMD, Operation Rockingham & Gateway or anything else on a different subject. He could have been considered a lose cannon and must have had all the dirt on almost everything including the unimaginable. If it was that he could no longer be relied upon not to blow the whistle then the players/actors could have been queuing up to knock him off. As head of the Defence Microbiology Division at Dstl Porton Down Dr Kelly may well have knowledge that could make the fact we went to war on a false prospectus the lesser revelation. Their testing of poisons on our own soldiers being an example of their lack of moral conscience.

If Dr Kelly's death occured to call a holt to the damage he had done to the fragile fabrications used to justify war on Iraq, then this would also served as a warning to others contemplating whistle blowing. Israel has a clear history of such targeted killings carried out with impunity. The same goes for the British and the American secret services but they are reluctant to taking out one of their own - it's bad for team moral.

Israel desired that the US should wage war against Iraq. The NeoCons comprising Bushes political team at the time are almost all known to be Zionists. Right now we are two years into an investigation of AIPAC's possible role as a spy front for Israel. Larry Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon Analyst, is observed by the FBI giving classified information to two officials of AIPAC suspected of being Israeli spies. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/motherofallscandals.html And Israel have an ownership WMD issue themselves on which Dr Kelly was also an authority.

The Kelly/Mangold e-mails detailed within Hutton could be intresting as they may be probing Kelly to see if indeed he is the 'cat-out-of-bag' man. And Kelly does rather confirm this by his "not a good time to be in communication" e-mail responce, but albeit also later on the same day the MoD confirms Dr Kelly's name to journalists.

Tom Mangold suggests Dr Kelly 'took' a call around 11.00am on the 17th July - 4hrs before Dr Kelly leaves his house in Oxfordshire, saying he is going for a walk.. Tom Mangold suggests the content of that call was grave news to Dr Kelly but that it was well intended by the news giver. Why does Mr Mangold contend a call was received, is this a fact? I have not seen the occurrence of such a call reported. Perhaps Tom Mangold knows such a call was received and from where and who that call emanated from. But perhaps that is the call that lured Dr Kelly out to meet with his death in the countryside.

This is a brilliant demolition of Tom Mangold with which I wholeheartedly agree! It is such a shame that no interviewers seem prepared to take Mangold on and pull apart his conjectures. Even such a simple thing as comparing Mangold's relationship with Dr Kelly as described in the Hutton report with his we are led to believe more personal friendship would be a start. So many things Mangold describes as fact are purely conjecture on his part, such as Kelly swallowing 29 tablets. Of course 29 missing coproxamol tablets does not automatically mean Kelly swallowed that number of these tablets - unless of course you are Tom Mangold!